While resilience to removal is always a consideration for me, I tend to evaluate cards assuming they won't be removed as I believe the likelihood of a threat sticking around at least for a turn or two is generally greater than that of it being removed--even in cube where removal is plentiful. This matches up pretty well with how I play too. I tend to play as though the opponent doesn't have the counter, removal, etc. because odds are they don't and if I'm going to lose, it is going to be because they beat the odds and not because I held back for fear of an answer they may not have. To be clear, it doesn't mean I'm going to lead with my primary threat when a player is holding up UU or overextend into a wrath.

In terms of Master of the Wild Hunt vs. Wicked Wolf that means I expect that more often than not I'm going to get at least 1 wolf from Master and if that holds true then Master has the capability to fight nearly as well as Wicked Wolf after just 1 turn and after two Master is MUCH better. This is just one axis though, creating more bodies has a lot of additional implications that push Master well beyond this card.

If you want to use your own made up custom system to evaluate cards why not just rule that real Food can be used for Wicked Wolf. Throw a Zinger in the trash to make him indestructible. Or make them flush it if you're pretty sure they'll fish it out of the waste basket later and eat it anyway.

If it was as simple as that it would be. But 5 of that attacking power is so vulnerable. I mean Beauty can be easily destroyed (she's a 1/1), which shackles the Beast... but Beast can even be neutered by someone putting a +1/+1 counter on her!

Added Blood for Bones, which was supposed to be IGN Brazil's spoiler but didn't appear to actually be spoiled yesterday.

Wait, Blood for Bones doesn't targets? So, correct me if I'm wrong, but theoretically you could sack a creature and revive the same creature you just sacked so you can get ETB+Dies triggers for value and still get a creature back to your hand? That's pretty neat. Ideally you will use it as a reanimation spell, sure, but the added utility is always nice.

I personally hope they don't intentionally start gaming when things target and when they do not in ways that are guaranteed to cause confusion.

Assuming we're understanding it correctly, you can essentially bounce a guy to reanimate something else, but with a detour through the graveyard.

The joy of a pauper cube, for me, is being able to always come home from a prerelease with cards to add to my cube. Pauper Cube mimics in many ways a limited environment, since common cards usually make up the bulk of one's limited deck. A pauper cube is a place to cheaply construct a representation of your favorite affordable cards to play with through the ages. It's fun to see what old commons make the cut for cube, and what new commons do to change the environment. Pauper Cubes are also quite versatile and allow a great variety of cubes to be shaped around such a simple stipulation. Some people like a powered pauper cube - that's fine. It means you're always trying to find which commons have been pushed *just enough* so that they're always "strictly better" than other cards. Other Pauper cubes are focused around synergies - it's fun to construct archetypes through affordable cards. Some people like Pauper Cubes because they naturally restrict the complexity of the cards involved. It makes playing Magic feel like the old days when cards did less things. Some people like pauper cubes that run thirty Relentless Rats or ten Rune Snags.

At a certain point one has to concede that Pauper Cubes can be *ANYTHING* the builder wants them to be. The one thing we can all agree on, and the only thing we might need to agree on, is that we like playing with Magic cards that are printed at Common.

I don't understand the point of reaching consensus. If you want to min max everything and play the same few dozen cards as everyone else, why not play constructed?

I get the feeling that none of you guys actually like Pauper, you just can't afford a Vintage cube and don't like looking at proxies. If you want to max out on power just go all the way, why stick with commons?

Even if you don't want to minmax reaching a consensus is pretty useful, as if you're beginning you can either build a maximum power cube by knowing what are the essentials, or build a depowered cube with crap cards by cutting bombs right away. You also get to know what cards are actually useful and which ones look good in paper but have poor execution, because a curated limited environment is important for cube now matter which 360 you run (you don't want to have a full powered black section but everything else with mediocre power level for example).

About the second part, I'm not sure if you're trolling or actually serious. I have a Vintage cube with proxies for the most expensive cards (that actually look good, and can pass as the real thing as long as they're sleeved, so looks are a non-issue) and it's a completely different beast from Pauper, both from gameplay perspective and the actual power of the cards. By that logic, why play a tier 1 deck in any format, because if you wanted power you would go play Shops in Vintage, right?